A Novel Conformal Coil Structure Design of Wireless Power Transfer System for Autonomous Underwater Vehicles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is  a very good submission on underwater wireless power transfer. The authors have presented their design with sufficient details. Experiments are also provided. The efficiency and power are high. The reviewer enjoys reading it and would like to provide a recommendation.

Author Response

Thank you again for reviewing our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper topic is of interest. However, this reviewer do not understand why the authors consider only eccentric and rotational misalignment. It is clear that the former is an important source of loss of efficiency, but rotational misalignmnt is not. As a matter of fact, the structures have a full rotational simmetry and, as Fig. 5(a) and 8(b) confirm, no modifications are expected for a rotational misalignment.

On the other hand, a longitudinal misalignment would affect strongly the efficiency. Therefore either this misalignment is considered or is very small. And in the second case, an evaluation of "very small" w.r.t. the loss of efficiency is needed. Otherwise the interest of the paper is rather small.

Some further comments follow.

Fig. 1(c): show both in the caption, and in the figure, too, what is the RX and what is the TX. In the TX sub-figure, please insert the size (r_1) of the RX

row 82: there is no acrylic slab in Fig. 1. Please, clarify. I imagine that acrylic has no EM effect at 200 kHz, but it is worth state it.

row 88: some data, or a reference for PC44 is needed.
 
row 101: At 200 kHz, shielding of a magnetic field is rather difficult. So, an evaluation of it is needed.

row 111: what FEA software has been used? A reference is needed.

Fig. 2: The caption is very cumbersome. Please, use a single statement for both and then complete the caption with "(a) RX coil, (b) TX coil". And I suggest to insert "RX" and "TXT" also in the figures. This is needed also in all other figures showing RX and TX. Please, use alwais the same order for RX and TX (which, e.g., in Fig. 8 is inverted w.r.t. Fig. 5)

row 128: there is a significant difference between fresh and salt water. What has been used in the simulation? What happens in the other case?

row 152: define the misalignments.

row 155: "millimeters" (not "millimeter"). The distance can be even a few centimeters?


The usage of several English words is incorrect. E.g.,
row 71: "AUV is charged" -> "AUV is to be charged";
row 75 (and in other places): the meaning of "conductive" is different. In this case you should use "which serves to conduct the AUV..."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Dear Authors,

The topic of the paper is very interesting and the presentation is clear, up to a certain point. Besides, there are few issues that must be revised, in my opinion.

1.     The title should be formulated better to express more clearly the topic of the paper.

2.     I consider that the existing shortcomings of the current solutions must be presented. Afterwards the improvements brought by these coils must be clearly presented.

3.     The structure should be presented in section 2, not in Introduction. The parameters of the coil should be given after the presentation of the design procedure, as they are obtained based on it.

4.     Please explain clearly how the plots from figures 2 and 3 are obtained.

5.     The experimental results are somewhat sparse and irrelevant.

6.     Why do you present a figure after the experimental results? You say ‘An inductor-capacitor-capacitor-series (LCC-S) compensated circuit topology as shown in Figure 6 is built to evaluate the performance of the structures.’ If it was built it must be shown clearly in the figure and its structure presented in section 2. If it is a proposed solution to be developed, it should be presented separately.

7.     The paper must be English proofread. Please pay more attention to editing. Please leave space between numbers and measurement units.

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All raised points have been satisfactorily answered.

Author Response

Thank you again for reviewing our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Dear authors,

Thank you for answering to my observations. However, there are some minor problems that need to be corrected.

1.     Section 2 begins with a figure. I consider that you should begin with a description of what is next, even if it short, in order to avoid placing a figure at the beginning of a section.

2.     I consider that you should not provide the definition of the eccentricity in the section dedicated to the experimental results, but in the previous sections.

3.     Please avoid placing a table at the end of the paper and structure the final section in such a way that it ends with text.

4.     Please leave space before the references in text (e.g. double-sided LCC[11],)

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf